r v. David, 2013 QCCQ 6718

R. c. Benoit 2013 QCCQ 6718 COURT OF QUEBEC Criminal and Penal Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL CITY OF MONTRÉAL N o : 500-01-042064-102 DATE: 23 May 2013 _____________________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PATRICK HEALY, J.C.Q. _____________________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Prosecutor v.

David BENOIT Accused _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT _____________________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Following a confrontation with police officers in Dorval on 27 June 2010, Mr. Benoit is charged with one count of threatening to cause death or bodily harm to B. L. (“the complainant”). [1] The words allegedly communicated to B. L., who is a police officer, were: “ Je pète ” or “ Je te pète ” or “ Je vais te péter .” [ 2 ] The complainant and his partner testified for the prosecution. Mr. Benoit and another man, Mr.

J., [2] testified for the defence. [ 3 ] The applicable principles in such cases are that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: a. an utterance or communication by one person to another, whether that other is specifically identifiable or not; b. that the communication can reasonably and objectively be construed as intending death or bodily harm to another person; and c. that the threat was subjectively intended by the person who made it to intimidate or to be taken seriously .

The first two of these three elements compose the actus reus of the offence and the third defines the mens rea . [3] If at the end of the case and on the whole of the evidence there remains a reasonable doubt on any one or more of these three elements, there must be an acquittal. If there is a reasonable doubt on the first there is necessarily reasonable doubt on the other two. If there is reasonable doubt on the second there is necessarily reasonable doubt on the third.

Basic principles [ 4 ] In view of the conflicts and contradictions in the evidence, a brief restatement of basic principles is appropriate before undertaking a review and assessment of the evidence. [ 5 ] T he presumption of innocence ensures that no person may be found guilty unless the offence charged is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Whether a reasonable doubt arises from the prosecution evidence, evidence led by the defence or an assessment of all of the evidence taken together, the accused must be acquitted if there remains a reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence at the end of the case.

In this respect the credibility of witnesses is of central importance because if the testimony of a witness raises a reasonable doubt as to its reliability it might as well raise a reasonable doubt with respect to an essential element of the offence or a matter of defence. Such a doubt, of course, might arise not only from an issue of credibility but from uncertainty or ambiguity or conflict in the testimony of sincere and otherwise credible witnesses. If there is a conflict in the evidence the trier of fact is not obliged to make a choice in favour of one version or another.

This might well be the result in a given case if the judge is led to this conclusion by the force of the evidence, but conclusions of fact must always reflect an examination and evaluation of the whole of the evidence. [ 6 ] The Supreme Court has given guidance on these principles in W.(D.) . [4] Lately the Court has reiterated that the presumption of innocence and the assessment of evidence, including the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are not matters of form but of substance. [5] Whether a judge follows textually and schematically the criteria set out in W.(D.) , or assesses them in some other manner, the presumption of innocence requires that there be a careful evaluation of all the evidence before the court to determine whether the

charge is proved or whether there remains a reasonable doubt. [ 7 ] W.(D.) does not impose a mechanical formula to be followed in the evaluation of evidence. Recently the Supreme Court has repeated this caution on several occasions. [6] This jurisprudence reminds us that the presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It lies with the trier of fact at the end of the trial to examine all of the evidence presented before the court and to evaluate it so as to determine whether the prosecution has discharged its burden.

The accused has nothing to prove and the prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt but beyond all reasonable doubt. [7] If there remains a reasonable doubt at the end of the trial and after a careful examination of all of the evidence, including questions of credibility, the accused must be acquitted. It does not matter whether a reasonable doubt touches a matter of defence or an element of the offence. If a reasonable doubt subsists after an assessment of all the evidence an acquittal is required.

Evidence [ 8 ] Two police officers, including the complainant, responded to a dispatcher’s call that reported a group of persons in a park where there was loud music and perhaps the consumption of drugs. The officers arrived in the parking area of the park and found two groups, one toward the west end and the other toward the east end. The complainant, according to his testimony, [8] approached the group toward the east and his partner approached the other group.

His partner informed him, having spoken to other group, that the car making noise had left the car park. [9] (Both officers said that when they arrived there was no music. [10] ) In the group that he approached the complainant observed a man standing next to a black car, who answered that the car belonged to him. This man was Mr. J. Upon demand by the complainant this man provided his driving permit, registration certificate and insurance papers. At this moment a blue car entered the car park. [ 9 ] The driver of the blue car was Mr. Benoit.

As soon as he got out of his car the complainant asked him for his papers. Mr. Benoit asked why he should do that because the complainant knew him already. The complainant responded to Mr. Benoit that he did not know him. [11] The complainant again asked for Mr. Benoit’s driving permit, registration certificate and insurance papers. Mr. Benoit then handed the complainant his driving permit, thus identifying himself as David Benoit. The complainant then asked for the other two documents but Mr. Benoit said that he did not have them. [12] The complainant again took the papers of the first man and Mr.

Benoit, then returned to his patrol-car to make routine inquiries. At this point his partner approached the patrol-car to give the complainant Mr. Benoit’s registration certificate and insurance papers. The complainant immediately begins to complete a ticket ( constat d’infraction ) against Mr. Benoit for failing to surrender his registration certificate. [ 10 ] At this point the complainant returned the papers of the first man and informed him that he could leave. [13] But the man decided to stay. In the complainant’s words this is what happened next: R. Par la suite, je m'en vais vers monsieur Benoit.

Je lui remets... je lui explique que je lui remets un constat d'infraction pour avoir refusé de m'avoir remis le certificat d'immatriculation, en même temps que je lui remets ses papiers. J'allais lui expliquer que je voulais, je lui donnais un avertissement pour avoir refusé de remettre sa preuve d'assurances, mais à ce moment-là monsieur Benoit est devenu extrêmement agressif, il s'est mis à crier, à m'injurier. Je lui ai dit de se calmer. Monsieur a continué à être agressif. À ce moment-là, j'ai laissé le permis de conduire et le constat d'infraction sur le véhicule, je lui dis qu'il peut quitter.

Monsieur était encore agressif. Il a commencé à raidir, à raidir ses bras, à crisper ses poings, puis il me fixait du regard. À ce moment-là il continuait à m'injurier, à m'insulter. Je lui ai dit à plusieurs reprises de se calmer. Comme il démontrait des signes précurseurs d'assaut, j'ai sorti mon poivre de cayenne, j'ai agité la cannette, je lui ai dit de se reculer, puis de se calmer, puis de s'en aller. Monsieur a continué à crier. Il y a un de ses amis, Kevin Joseph a essayé aussi de le calmer, l'a même retenu à un certain moment donné.

Mon partenaire a essayé aussi de le calmer pour lui dire de s'en aller et de se calmer. Et celui-ci continuait. Et il m'a dit, à un certain moment : « Tu fais ton tough avec ton gun puis ton badge ». Par la suite, son ami a essayé de le calmer. Il a dit, en me fixant du regard : « Je pète, je pète ». À ce moment-là, vers vingt heures quarante-neuf (20 h 49), j'ai informé monsieur Benoit qu'il était en état d'arrestation pour des menaces. Moi et mon partenaire on a amené monsieur Benoit au véhicule.

On a voulu procéder à un menottage, mais il raidissait ses bras, on a dû effectuer un contrôle articulaire pour procéder au menottage. On a procédé au menottage. Quand est venu le temps d'amener monsieur Benoit dans le véhicule, il s'est enfargé dans ses pieds ou quoi que ce soit, il est rentré, sa tête a rentré un peu dans le véhicule, nous on l'a retenu pour pas qu'il se cogne ou quoi que ce soit ou pour pas qu'il tombe dans le véhicule. Monsieur a commencé à crier, à dire : « Ahhh... », comme s'il était en douleur, comme s'il avait été frappé. J'ai pas vu qu'il s'est frappé la tête sur quoi que ce soit.

On l'a rentré dans le véhicule. Aussitôt qu'il était assis dans le véhicule, il a arrêté de se plaindre, il avait aucune blessure au visage, aucune blessure ou marque apparente. À ce moment-là je lui ai informé qu'il était en état d'arrestation pour les menaces, intimidation. J'ai fait la lecture des droits avec la carte F-56516, en anglais, l'avocat, le motif et le droit au silence. Q. Dites-moi, les paroles que vous avez mentionnées, qu'il vous a dites, c'est : « Je pète, je pète », qu'est-ce que vous avez compris par là, par ça? R.

En disant... avec la posture qu'il avait, les gestes qu'il avait faits auparavant. Q. C'est quoi la posture qu'il avait puis les gestes qu'il a faits auparavant? R. Il a raidi ses poings, il a crispé ses poings, il me fixait du regard, il suait abondamment, il y avait tous des signes qui sont précurseurs d'assaut. En disant : « Je te pète, je te pète », c'était que, soit qu'il allait vouloir me tuer ou vouloir m'attaquer, il allait avoir une attaque envers moi. [14] And hence the charge of threats against Mr. Benoit. [ 11 ] When asked by the prosecution why he demanded the papers of Mr.

Benoit, the complainant said that as the officers had received information of loud music and possible drug consumption he wanted to ascertain that Mr. Benoit was not in some way intoxicated. [15] The defence pursued this question. The complainant responded that one reason for demanding the papers was to ascertain whether the driver was intoxicated, given that the original complaint suggested drug consumption in the park, and the other was to check the validity of the papers. [16] This is a straight answer but nonetheless peculiar for two reasons. First, Mr.

Benoit came to the scene in the park well after the police had arrived and, second, the complainant testified clearly that when Mr. Benoit arrived there

was no indication of any kind that he had committed, was committing or was about to commit an offence of any kind. [17] In the absence of any apprehended offence, the only explanation provided by the complainant for demanding papers immediately upon Mr. Benoit’s arrival in the car park was to ensure compliance with highway-traffic regulations. [18] [ 12 ] At 20h41 the complainant served Mr. Benoit with the ticket for failing to provide his registration papers. At 20h47 Mr.

Benoit was arrested for threatening the complainant by saying, in the minutes immediately preceding, “ Je te pète ” or “ Je pète ” or “ Je vais te péter .” [19] [ 13 ] There was much in the evidence to suggest that in the altercation with police after their demand for his papers Mr. Benoit was agitated and aggressive in tone. There was also much in the evidence to establish that he expressed, and expresses, himself not only with words but animated gestures. In response to the elevated exchange with Mr. Benoit at one point the complainant withdrew a can of pepper spray and shook it in preparation for use.

These observations are not contested by the parties. Q. Et vous avez la lecture des droits en anglais, vous dites? R. Oui. Q. Mais avant, monsieur Benoît vous a parlé en français... R. Oui. Q. ... ou en anglais? R. Il m'a parlé en français. Q. Et la... R. Monsieur semblait très habile dans les deux langues. Q. Et la phrase exacte qu'il vous a adressée, c'était? R. On parle des menaces que... c'est "je t'pète", mais on parle ici de... c'est comme si "je t'pète", ça fait que... mais le T... le T-E ça serait un T apostrophe, là, si on veut, si on met ça en langage plus populaire. Q. Et ça veut dire quoi exactement?

Qu'est-ce que vous avez compris? R. "Je t'pète" ça peut être un... moi, ce que j'ai compris c'était une menace. C'est soit qu'il voulait me tuer, me battre, me faire du mal. "Je t'pète" ça veut dire je vais te faire sauter. Je vais te faire éclater. Ce n'est pas des bonnes choses et en plus, avec la "gesture", la posture qu'il avait, monsieur raidissait ses poings. Il y avait des signes précurseurs d'assaut à ce moment-là, ça laissait présager qu'il y avait un assaut qui était imminent puis c'était des menaces à mon égard. Q. Je ne vais pas trouver les mots comme ça dans le dictionnaire. R.

Je ne pense pas que vous allez voir exactement... [20] Thus the complainant concluded his testimony. [ 14 ] The complainant’s partner testified [21] and described the moment of confrontation is these terms: A. So, I went back to the other people that he... Mr. Benoît was with and I explained to them the reason why we were there. There was citizens around the park that were complaining of noise and people smoking marijuana. We were here to just ensure that peace and tranquillity came to the neighbourhood and asked them to leave. That's where we were going.

It was something, a call that started off, really a routine call that I figured was going to end calmly and peacefully but when agent Lafleur gave Mr. Benoît the ticket for not having produced his registration, Mr. Benoît became very irritated, started swearing, screaming. His body language, his eyes were big, almost coming out of his head. His fists were closed, clenched tight. He was very aggressive. At that point, constable Lafleur pulled out his pepper spray and began to shake it. I, because of the nature of the call, I exposed myself to a certain level of danger because I went into the crowd of Mr.

Benoît and Mr. Benoît's friends and I pulled Mr. Joseph, I believe. I don't know what relation he is to Mr. Benoît. I pulled him aside and I said listen. The situation is going to get out of hand. I'm asking you take Mr. Benoît, leave. Me and my partner, we're going to leave. He didn't do that. The comments, the insults started going back and forth and at a particular moment in time, Mr. Benoît, while he's being held back so so by Mr. Joseph, looks at my partner and goes "je t'pète. Je t'pète." At that point, he took it as he was threatening Mr. Lafleur's life. We placed him under arrest for des menaces de mort.

I grabbed his left arm ... Q. You've been on the job for 13 years. A. Yes. Q. I mean people shoot their mouths off all the time. A. Yes, but this, in this particular instance, it was more than just shooting your mouth off. It went further than that. It was very... like I

said, I'm used to getting insulted all the time. It doesn't bother me but Mr. Benoît, by his physical and the way he pointed and made the gun gesture and said "je t'pète, je t'pète", with his eyes coming out of his head and being... spit coming out of his mouth, he looked like an enraged animal and for something as trivial as the call that we were called for, I don't understand why. I've never dealt with this gentleman before. Mr. Lafleur, from what he told me, he didn't deal with this gentleman before.

I mean it could be a case of mistaken identity, no problem, but when I went to him and I spoke to him calmly and I explained to him why we were there and then he told me, look, I just didn't want to give him, he had reached a level of calmness, it was okay but the simple receiving of a ticket caused the thing to escalate once again and take on a proportion that was completely ridiculous. [22] This testimony is consistent with that of the complainant concerning the sequence of events.

It must be noted, however, that the complainant’s partner is apparently more subdued and controlled about the gravity of the situation. [ 15 ] Mr. Benoit [23] gives a somewhat different account, although the broad lines of the sequence are similar. When he arrived in the car park and got out of his car, the complainant immediately approached him and demanded that he produce his papers. [24] According to Mr. Benoit, the complainant then told him abruptly that if he did not produce his papers he would receive a ticket. Mr. Benoit in return demanded to know why and what he had done to merit such a demand. Mr.

Benoit produced his permit but had some difficulty finding his other papers. The complainant then walked to his patrol-car with Mr. Benoit’s permit. The complainant’s partner then approaches Mr. Benoit. Mr. Benoit describes this moment as follows: R. Ah! Il m'a dit si tu n'as pas tes papiers, je vais te donner un ticket. J'ai dit don't worry, I have my papers. So I started looking for my papers in my car. I find my license and he was... he kept like pushing me, like telling me to hurry up. So I gave him my license. Then I couldn't find my insurance paper, but I had everything.

It's just I guess I was a bit nervous at the moment. So I couldn't really know exactly where my stuff was. So then he starts walking to... away from me, like with my license. So he leaves. Then monsieur Bell comes towards... no, then... yes, that's it. He leaves. Then monsieur Bell comes and he tells me what's going on? I'm like I don't know. He's asking for my papers, na, na, na. Do you have your papers? I'm like yes, I do. I just have to give it to you. So I look for it and I give them to monsieur Bell. So, then at that point, monsieur Bell came with a different attitude than monsieur Lafleur.

He came with me polite... basically like I was a human being. So I'm going to talk to him as a human being. I told yes, here you go and I'm like thank you. I gave the man. I told him in French, j'ai dit... no, actually in English, I told him, well, I couldn't give it to him. I'm giving it to you. So he takes my papers and he starts walking towards monsieur Lafleur. Q. Okay. What happens after that? A. Then everything is okay. … A. This is monsieur Bell and this is monsieur Lafleur, in the back.

And then the next thing I know, everything is okay and then monsieur Lafleur comes with a ticket, with a $400.00 something ticket and he gives me that. Right away I'm like why did you give me that ticket? Then he starts taking a defensive position and I start... then my nephew is already beside me and I started talking in Creole. I'm like is this guy crazy? Like he's giving me a ticket for absolutely nothing and yes, I was mad and yes, I was cursing but I wasn't cursing at him. I was saying... if I could repeat what I was saying or... Me TAWIL : Q. Well, it's not necessary. A.

Well, it was... basically I was telling him like... THE COURT : Q. No. Word for word? Me TAWIL : Q. Okay, word for word? A. Basically it was the F word. I was saying F... like this guy is going to give me a ticket. Where am I supposed to find money because basically, the situation with those cops in Dorval is that I've been going through a couple of situations before. So the whole two years before that situation, I was on absolution conditionnelle and they've been harassing me, giving me tickets for absolutely nothing. At a point, they even gave me a ticket for leaving my doors unlocked for five minutes.

They put that ticket in my car and that's one of the tickets I've had. So the fact that I got a ticket and I had everything in charge. I had my license. I had my insurance, everything. So he gives me that ticket. So I'm just like, you know, mad and I'm talking to my nephew and the next thing I know, monsieur Lafleur comes out of nowhere and tells me I'm under arrest for threats. Then... Q. So let's take that part, the... once you get the ticket...

A. Yes. Q. ... from constable Lafleur, okay. What does he tell you when he gives you the ticket? A. He absolutely... he doesn't tell me anything. He just gives me the ticket, no explanation, no nothing. Q. And do you respond to him and do you just respond to your nephew? A. Not at all. I actually took the ticket. I read the ticket. Then I just started. I'm like is this guy crazy? And at no point ever, I was talking to monsieur Lafleur because I know the system. I know how those cops are. I know monsieur Lafleur actually wanted me to start getting aggressive towards him, for him to have a reason.

So I was actually just expressing my disregard for the ticket at me and my nephew because he was there and I was talking to him and... Q. So what exactly were you saying at this point? Maybe you don't remember every single word but... A. I remember in Haitian, I told him how am I supposed to find money for all those tickets they're giving me? Q. How do you say that in Haitian? A. Like... Il me dit... like exactly in Haitian? Q. Yes, yes. A. I told him, monsieur fou, monsieur fou (inaudible) un ticket pour 400,00 $ (inaudible) monsieur fou.

Then I said the F word and then I said... then that's when he said... you know I'm like (inaudible). Monsieur, like he... I was insulting him in my language, but never, never no insults like English words that he could ever say that I said he was an idiot. No, no. I said the F word, yes, but... Q. Okay. Now... THE COURT : Q. Now, just a minute. To the best of your recollection, can you... A. Yes. Q. ... tell me who said what? A. Between me and the cop or me and myself? Me, I was... Q. Well, I guess from the time that Mr. Lafleur gave you the ticket until you got... A.

He gave me the ticket and then I started yelling and I started getting mad. Then at no point I think monsieur Bell came to talk to me. I don't remember if he did come to talk to me but he did talk to me before the ticket. He was telling me, you know and we were talking as everything was okay. So, then I was basically just repeating in Haitian what I said exactly my regards for the ticket and that's what it exactly was. It was not (inaudible). It was so fast that... Q.

How much time would you say passed between the moment you get the ticket and the moment you're being arrested that constable Lafleur says vous êtes en état d'arrestation? How much time would have passed? A. I... not... two, three minutes. I couldn't really be exact on time but it was like no... like he didn't give me no chance, not at all. Q. Did... you heard the police officer's statement. Constable Bell said that you would have pointed at him in a gun manner. A. Yes. Q. What do you have to say about that? A.

Absolutely never did that at no point, whatsoever and monsieur Bell was there and he knows and I don't know where that statement from pointing a gun towards him and saying I'm going to péter. I don't even talk like that. Like it's just... I don't know. Q. Do you have any idea what "je t'pète" could mean? A. "Je t'pète", first of all it's not a word that we used. "Je t'pète" is not even... like it's... I don't use that word and to me, for him to say that I said that, it just shows me to that they had actually nothing to say against me. Q. Is there something that... A.

Obviously, yes, I was cursing but I wasn't cursing towards him or anything like in that way. Q. What other words were... did you use? What else did you say? A. I said... basically I was saying the F word. I was saying the F word and I was speaking in Creole. The only word they could have actually listened in the Creole world is fuck, sorry, the F word, that's it. I'm sorry.

THE COURT : Q. Don't worry, we heard it before in here. A. I'm sorry. Q. At some... you say that you spoke in Creole? A. Yes. [25] Mr. Benoit admits that he was angry in his exchange with the complainant because he thought the demand for papers and the ticket were unjustified. He attributed both to previous encounters with the complainant. But Mr. Benoit expressly denied uttering the allegedly threatening words attributed to him and making a gun-pointing gesture with his hand. [26] [ 16 ] Mr. J., the second witness for the defence, is also Mr. Benoit’s nephew.

He was in the car park when the police officers arrived. In his testimony he confirmed that there were two groups of people and that they did not know each other. [27] The police officers did not approach the other group but stayed with his group. [28] They demanded his papers. After Mr. Benoit arrived, and as soon as he got out of his car, the officers went directly to him and demanded his papers. [29] He asked why they wanted his papers given that he had just arrived. [30] (Mr. J. noted that this was not the first occasion that he and Mr.

Benoit had been stopped by the complainant. [31] ) The complainant then returned to the patrol-car and thereafter gave some papers to the complainant’s partner and after some checks the officers returned with a ticket. [32] Mr. Benoit then remonstrated that the ticket was unfair and spoke bitterly in Creole. [33] The police officers approached and the complainant took out his cayenne-pepper spray. [34] There was a tone of anger and frustration in Mr. Benoit’s voice. [35] At this point the complainant arrested Mr. Benoit. Mr. J. asked why he was arrested and the complainant replied that Mr.

Benoit had made threats. Mr. J. said that in arresting Mr. Benoit the complainant was also aggressive. He tried to speak with the complainant’s partner. R. Après, nous, on était là pendant qu'il me parlait. J'ai vu les policiers s'approcher en disant... monsieur Lafleur avait sa main sur son poivre de Cayenne. Il l'a sorti comme s'il allait faire quelque chose. Là, c'est moi, je me suis approché un petit peu plus de monsieur Lafleur en disant c'est quoi le problème? Comme on est en train de discuter. D'où vient l'agressivité. Puis là, il dit ah, monsieur Benoît est en état d'arrestation.

La raison, là, j'ai commencé à dire, mais pourquoi qu'il est en état d'arrestation, qu'est-ce qu'il a fait? Là, c'est là qu'il dit ah, il a fait des menaces. Q. Oui. R. Tout de suite, là, les policiers ont commencé. Tu sais, là, ils avaient les gants. Ils ont commencé. Ils m'ont écarté. Ils ont dit ah, enlevez-vous de là. Il est en état d'arrestation. So, déjà là, je vois que tu sais il était déjà plus agressif. J'essaie de parler plus avec l'autre policier qui n'était pas Lafleur parce que lui était plus comprenable. Lui, il parlait avec nous.

Puis à quelques reprises durant ça, on voit qu'il essaie de retenir un petit peu monsieur Lafleur de côté parce qu'il agissait d'une manière un petit peu plus agressive que la norme. Ce que je pouvais voir que son collègue essayait de le retenir un petit peu. Donc déjà là, moi, je ne me sentais pas à l'aise ou confortable qu'un policier doit retenir un autre policier. [36] In cross-examination he took up the same point: Q. Est-ce que vous avez entendu tout l'échange entre monsieur Benoît et monsieur Lafleur? R.

Tout l'échange, je pourrais dire oui parce que ça s'est fait, j'étais toujours là et j'étais en avant de monsieur Benoît, après qu'il a reçu le ticket. Donc, j'ai entendu. J'étais là durant l'échange, mais il n'y a pas eu d'échange avec monsieur Lafleur en tant que tel. Moi, c'était plus comme je dis avec moi qu'il discutait. C'était... on parlait en créole puis il me montrait le ticket. So, quand monsieur Lafleur a sorti son pepper spray, c'est là que j'ai vu que la situation était en train d'augmenter, mais je ne vois pas pourquoi.

David, il levait le ton de voix, mais jamais en la direction des policiers ou quoi que ce soit. Q. Alors, vous dites que monsieur Benoît n'a pas parlé à monsieur Lafleur? R. Il n'a pas... avant le ticket, c'est sûr qu'en lui donnant les papiers puis tout, ils ont discuté, mais après le ticket, il n'y avait pas d'insultes ou quoi que ce soit. Il n'y a pas eu de discussion que je pourrais, moi, me souvenir. Quand j'étais là il n'y avait pas de discussion avec monsieur Lafleur. Toutes les... comme les insultes qu'on dit ou bien qui avaient été dites, c'était à moi qu'il parlait. Il parlait en créole.

Jamais qu'il y a eu quoi que ce soit. Même moi, quand il se faisait arrêter, j'ai demandé au constable qui est là, monsieur, je ne connais pas son nom, mais le policier qui est ici présent, pourquoi que monsieur Benoît se faisait arrêter. Puis c'est là que lui m'expliquait parce qu'il a fait des menaces au policier et moi, j'ai expliqué qu'il y avait aucune menace qui avait été faite.

Tout qu'est-ce qui avait été dit c'est moi puis monsieur Benoît qui étions dans une conversation, mais évidemment, ça, ça n'a rien changé puis ils m'ont mis en état d'arrestation par la suite. [37] Utterance [ 17 ] Both the complainant and his partner were questioned as to the precise words identified as a threat. The complainant gave several answers: “ Je pète ;” [38] “Je te pète; ” [39] or “ Je vais te péter .” [40] The phrase more frequently recalled in his testimony is “ Je te pete .” [41] He added that Mr.

Benoit was aggressive, insulting and frequently gesticulating in what he called “ des signes précurseurs d’assaut .” [42] The complainant’s partner testified that he heard the accused say “ Je te pète ” to the complainant. [43] He too said that Mr. Benoit was aggressive and more specifically that his gestures included a gun-pointing motion with his hand. Mr. Benoit testified

that he never said any of these words to the complainant or made a gun-pointing gesture toward him. Mr. J., the second witness for the defence, also testified that he heard no such words uttered by Mr. Benoit to the complainant. Thus a first question to determine whether the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt the words allegedly spoken by Mr. Benoit. Meaning [ 18 ] The witnesses were also questioned about the phrase “ Je te pète .” The complainant: Q. Et vous avez la lecture des droits en anglais, vous dites? R. Oui. Q. Mais avant, monsieur Benoît vous a parlé en français... R. Oui. Q. ... ou en anglais? R.

Il m'a parlé en français. Q. Et la... R. Monsieur semblait très habile dans les deux langues. Q. Et la phrase exacte qu'il vous a adressée, c'était? R. On parle des menaces que... c'est "je t'pète", mais on parle ici de... c'est comme si "je t'pète", ça fait que... mais le T... le T-E ça serait un T apostrophe, là, si on veut, si on met ça en langage plus populaire. Q. Et ça veut dire quoi exactement? Qu'est-ce que vous avez compris? R. "Je t'pète" ça peut être un... moi, ce que j'ai compris c'était une menace. C'est soit qu'il voulait me tuer, me battre, me faire du mal.

"Je t'pète" ça veut dire je vais te faire sauter. Je vais te faire éclater. Ce n'est pas des bonnes choses et en plus, avec la "gesture", la posture qu'il avait, monsieur raidissait ses poings. Il y avait des signes précurseurs d'assaut à ce moment-là, ça laissait présager qu'il y avait un assaut qui était imminent puis c'était des menaces à mon égard. Q. Je ne vais pas trouver les mots comme ça dans le dictionnaire. R. Je ne pense pas que vous allez voir exactement... [44] His partner: Q. And it is not a question of judicial notice, connaissance judiciaire non plus. So I want to...

I want you to tell me more about how you understand these words? A. Well, in my 13 years of policing... Q. Yes. A. ... me intervening on a whole number of different calls and with a whole variety of different people, I've heard that phrase used before by people that had the intention of hurting people and actually tried to hurt people and just by his demeanour, his posture, his way he was speaking to us, the use of profanities. Like I said he was very... I took it as a... I took it like he wanted to kill Mr. Lafleur and he didn't say it once, your Honour.

He repeated it both times and he actually made the gesture with his finger, pointing like this over Mr... I forget his name. I mentioned it before. Kevin Joseph, his... I don't know what his relation is. It's a family member. Q. What is this gesture though? You're pointing as if you're pointing a gun? A. Yes. Q. Or you're just pointing your finger? A. Pointing... No, pointing like as if pointing a gun. Q. Because there is a difference between... you know, you say to a child I could smack you. A. Yes. Q. It doesn't really mean you're going to smack him? A. No.

No, but at some particular point, you're confronted with a police officer in uniform and I think that Mr. Benoît will agree that I tried to the best of my ability to calm things down that night and I'm sure you've heard the expression, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

This is one of those situations. In all my career, your Honour, this was a very routine call that exploded for reasons that were beyond our control. It took on a proportion that was absolutely ridiculous and the only people responsible for that are the people in question because like I said, I exposed myself to a certain level of danger to try and get cooler heads, calmer heads to prevail and I was unable to do it. [45] [ 19 ] Mr. Benoit: Q. Is it an expression in Creole "je t'pète"? Est-ce que c'est... A. Not at all. Q. C'est-tu une expression créole? R. Non, pas du tout. Q. It's not an expression? A. No. Q.

You know, you do not say that in Créole? A. No. Q. No, okay. I want to know. A. Not even in French. Not even in English. We don't use that term at all. Q. You didn't. Did you ever... THE COURT : Q. Do you know what it means? A. "Je t'pète", well, "je t'pète", I don't know. Like it's to péter something. Like to me, péter c'est comme... first péter in my language is... it's (inaudible). Then after that, it comes to certain differences of péter but to me, péter is not something I used. It's not a word that like I could use.

If I say I'm going to shoot somebody, I would say I'll shoot you than to say "je vais t'péter". C'est pas un terme que j'aurais utilisé. [46] This is not an explanation of the meaning of the phrase; nor is it a denial of any familiarity with the phrase. It is a denial of its use in the exchange with the complainant. [ 20 ] Mr. J.: Q. Pouvez-vous m'expliquer votre compréhension de la phrase suivante "je t'pète"? R. C'est quoi la question au juste? Je n'ai pas compris. Me TAWIL : Q. Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire ça? R. Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire "je t'pète"? Q. Oui. R.

Moi, de ma notion, "je t'pète", je dirais que ça serait... bon! "Je t'pète", ça dépendrait aussi dans quel contexte. LA COUR : Q. Mais donnez-moi des exemples? R. Pardon? Q. Donnez-moi des exemples? R. Bien, je te... comme nous quand on joue à des jeux vidéo, je pourrais dire à mon copain, regarde, je vais te péter en voulant dire que c'est moi qui vais gagner. C'est comme un genre de slang. Je pense que ça peut être aussi utilisé comme "je t'pète" en tant que dire à une personne est-ce que... je peux te battre ou quoi que ce soit. Ça peut être utilisé en différentes manières je pourrais dire. Q.

Est-ce que vous avez entendu cette phrase le 27 juin? R. Non, en aucun temps j'ai entendu cette phrase. LA COUR : D'autres questions?

Me TAWIL : Non. Me MERCIER : Oui, excusez-moi. Q. Par rapport à la signification du mot "je t'pète", vous avez dit quand vous jouez aux jeux vidéo? R. Oui. Q. Qu'est-ce que vous jouez comme jeux vidéo? Halo, ces choses-là, c'est... R. Il y a Call of Duty. Il peut y avoir des jeux de football. Q. ... comme... R. Il peut y avoir des jeux de basket-ball. On joue à tous les jeux. Q. Et quand vous dites ça "je t'pète", quand vous jouez à des jeux de... R. Hum, hum! Q. ... comme Call of Duty... R. Il y a plusieurs... Q. ... je comprends que ça, c'est quel genre de jeu? C'est... R. C'est un jeu... Q. De combat?

R. ... de combat, oui, je pourrais dire. Q. Oui. Et cette expression-là, si on jouait à ce jeu-là, ça serait utilisé quand, par exemple? R. Ça serait utilisé quand? Mettons que tu as plus de points, tu dirais à ton adversaire je suis en train de te péter, comme on joue toujours online avec des Bluetooths. Moi, c'est une expression que je pourrais dire que si je joue online, ça arrive que des personnes me disent, ah, vous êtes en train de perdre. Vous êtes poche. On est en train de vous péter, tout simplement, en disant qu'ils sont en train de gagner, tout simplement la manche de points.

Je suis en train de vous péter démontre une marge de points de différence. Q. Mais cette expression-là aussi peut être utilisée, "je t'pète" dans le sens je vais te blesser ou te faire du mal ou... R. Ah bien, c'est sûr que ça peut être utilisé dans plusieurs contextes. Ça, c'est... Q. Ok.

Merci. [47] Given the views and the other witnesses, a second question of importance is to determine, assuming they were spoken, whether the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that these words could reasonably and objectively be construed as a threat of death or bodily harm. [48] This is a question about an element of the actus reus of the offence. In Clemente the Supreme Court said this about the elements of the offence of uttering threats under

section 264.1 of the Code: Under the present

section the actus reus of the offence is the uttering of threats of death or serious bodily harm. The mens rea is that the words be spoken or written as a threat to cause death or serious bodily harm; that is, they were meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. [49] This statement of the actus reus contains two elements. One is a specific utterance or communication. The second is the characterisation of that utterance or communication as a threat of death or bodily harm. The two are distinct and both are essential parts of the actus reus . [ 21 ] This concluded the evidence of the parties.

Assessment [ 22 ] The evidence in this case requires attention to three questions. First, did Mr. Benoit say “ Je te pète ” (or anything close) to the complainant? Second, if he did utter such words, could they reasonably and objectively be construed as a threat of death or bodily harm? Finally, if the evidence proves that Mr. Benoit spoke words (“ Je te pète ”) that could reasonably and objectively be understood as threats of death or bodily harm, did he subjectively intend them with such meaning?

The three questions identified in this paragraph are the questions that the Supreme Court of Canada obliges me to consider as a result of McCraw , [50] Clemente [51] and O’Brien . [52] [ 23 ] On the first question I am not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Benoit said “ Je te pète ” to the complainant. The complainant himself was not entirely clear in his testimony as to the words used and he has said that the altercation was heated. Although his partner testified that he heard these words, Mr. Benoit and Mr. J. are categorical that no such words were spoken to the

complainant by Mr. Benoit. Further, the defence witnesses said clearly that Mr. Benoit’s speech at the relevant moments was chiefly in Creole. This aspect was not addressed by the prosecution witnesses. I do not doubt the sincerity of the prosecution witnesses but I am not persuaded that they heard clearly. All of the witnesses testified that the exchange was quick, animated and charged. In a case of threats the prosecution cannot succeed unless the impugned words or gestures can be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is, of course, possible that Mr.

Benoit said “ Je te pète ” or something similar to the complainant but a possibility is not sufficient. In short, the conflicting accounts of the words, by themselves, compel an acquittal. [ 24 ] Given the preceding conclusion that there is a reasonable doubt whether Mr. Benoit said “ Je te pète ” to the complainant, it follows that in the circumstances of this case there must be a reasonable doubt whether any words attributed to Mr. Benoit could reasonable and objectively be construed as a threat of death or bodily harm.

If there is uncertainty as to what was said, there must be uncertainty of the meaning that words could reasonably bear. The question is hypothetical: if X was said, what could X reasonably and objectively mean? [ 25 ] I accept hypothetically that in current idiomatic speech the words in question - “ Je pète ” or “ Je te pète ” or “ Je vais te péter ” – could be construed as a threat of death or bodily harm, especially in the context of an animated and escalating exchange between antagonists. But these words are not free from grammatical or lexical ambiguity.

No evidence other than the testimony of the witnesses relates to this question and that evidence is an uncertain mix of street argot, personal opinion and context. The complainant’s testimony, based on his personal experience, expresses his instinctive understanding of the words he says he heard. His partner’s testimony does the same in the form of an opinion about the understanding of such words on the street. Mr. J. testified that the meaning of the words would depend on context but this is speculation because his testimony was that the words were not spoken by Mr. Benoit.

The evidence concerning the meaning of the impugned words could certainly be reinforced by a disinterested witness familiar with the popular language of Québec. But in the circumstances of this case, given the uncertainty whether the impugned were actually spoken, the point need not be pursued further. [ 26 ] Finally, if the evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt what was said, and for this reason cannot prove that the alleged words could reasonably and objectively be construed as a threat of death or bodily harm, the evidence cannot prove that Mr.

Benoit subjectively intended those threatening words as a threat of death or bodily harm to the complainant in the circumstances of this case. [ 27 ] In brief, the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the alleged words were spoken. There is thus a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the actus reus . The evidence a fortiori leaves a reasonable doubt whether in the context of this case words spoken by Mr. Benoit denote reasonably and objectively a threat of death or bodily harm. Thus there is a reasonable doubt on another element of the actus reus of the offence charged.

Finally, in view of the subsisting doubt on the existence of the words, there cannot be anything but a reasonable doubt with regard to Mr. Benoit’s intention to intimidate or to be taken seriously in the communication of a threat of death or bodily harm. There is, inescapably, a reasonable doubt as to the mens rea of the offence charged. A reasonable doubt on any one element compels an acquittal. Here there is reasonable doubt on all three essential elements of the offence charged. [ 28 ] The evidence demonstrates that there was a heated altercation in which Mr.

Benoit was agitated and insulting and the police, notably the complainant, were insulted and alarmed. The complainant’s partner perhaps described this altercation most accurately as a situation that rapidly accelerated into an angry confrontation. That much is clear but I am not persuaded that Mr.

Benoit spoke to the complainant any words that reasonably and objectively constitute a threat of death or bodily harm and that were intended thereby to intimidate or be taken seriously. [ 29 ] With respect to the assessments stipulated in W.(D.) [53] and related jurisprudence, the conclusions stated in the preceding paragraph should make plain the answers to three relevant questions. Even if I do not believe the defence evidence, including most notably Mr. Benoit’s testimony, it and the prosecution evidence taken as a whole at the end of the case leave a reasonable doubt on each of the three essential elements.

I repeat: there is a reasonable doubt whether the impugned words were spoken. This conclusion necessarily raises a reasonable doubt whether words spoken by Mr. Benoit could reasonably and objectively be construed as a threat of death or bodily harm. Thus it is the third question in W.(D.) that determines the outcome here. The whole of the evidence at the end of the case fails to come up to proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is not attributable to specific conclusions of credibility concerning each of the witnesses.

It is attributable to a lack of reliability in the whole of the evidence. [ 30 ] A central argument advanced by the defence in this case was that Mr. Benoit was the object of racial profiling by the complainant. While racial profiling is a known concern in policing, and more broadly in the administration of criminal justice, this type of submission must be approached with caution. In this case there was evidence that there had been previous encounters between Mr. Benoit and the complainant, and that as a result of these Mr. Benoit felt badgered by the police.

But this evidence is inconclusive and manifestly insufficient to draw any inference of racial profiling. There were other aspects of the evidence that cause concern as well. The demand for driving papers was peremptory and seemingly made with little or no foundation. The decision to issue a ticket with respect to the registration papers reflected hasty and perhaps even intemperate judgment. Given the evidence of his partner, the decision of the complainant to take out his pepper spray was arguably an over-reaction in the circumstances.

And - given the observations of his partner, the experience of the officers in dealing with persons who insult them, and all of the surrounding circumstances – the decision to arrest Mr. Benoit was arguably a premature and disproportionate action. These are all relevant considerations but they do not support racial profiling as a principal line of defence. [ 31 ] The result of this case is compelled by the subsistence of a reasonable doubt on each of the three questions identified in paragraphs 3 and 22, and discussed throughout these reasons. FOR THESE REASONS Mr.

Benoit is acquitted. ____________________________________ PATRICK HEALY, J.C.Q.

M e Isabelle Mercier For the prosecution M e Richard Tawil For Mr. Benoit Date of hearing: 2 April 2012 and 5 April 2013